Hillary Clinton is, once again, "back on track" to win it all. Thanks, in large part, to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is the pastor of the Christian Church to which Barack Obama and his family have been members for the past 20 (+/-) years. The membership of this Christian Church is, predominantly, African-American.

It is not all "smooth sailing" for Hillary as her detractors have not yet abandoned their efforts to thwart her 2008 quest for the office of U.S. President.
___________________________________________________________

March 12, 2008:

NYS Governor Eliot Spitzer has been caught in a major sex scandal in which he was caught hiring incredibly high priced prostitutes who charged him $5,000 for 1 hours worth of "companionship". The organization, which recruits and provides these women, calls itself the Emporer's Club. Well! New York State is nicknamed The Empire State. Most apt!

Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign his office, in disgrace, after serving only 439 days in office. Leaving 1,022 days to be served by his Lt. Governor David Paterson, who is legally blind and an African-American.

The reason why this impacts the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is that Eliot Spitzer had endorsed Clinton and, in 2007, tried to have legal NYS driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens/immigrants. Some of whom may have been Islamic terrorists. Placing Clinton in a most embarrassing and untenable position.

Barack Obama is beginning to outdistance Hillary Clinton. Once again! But it will all be left in the hands of the "super delegates". Elected public officials who were not elected as convention delegates during the "primary" election races. Dick Morris claims that this is now "crunch time" for the Clinton campaign, where things can begin to get really mean and ugly. We'll see!

Hillary Clinton is now back in the game. There is no telling as to just how this one may turn-out. Not by me at least. So! Let's all "stay tuned".
____________________________________________________________

March 2, 2008:

Events are culminating to a crescendo of suspense. The entire story may be told in just a few days. Or not. ___________________________________________________________

February 27, 2008:

With the Democratic Party Super-Delegates(to the 2008 Democratic National Convention) shifting their support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama and next week's primary elections in the states of Ohio and Texas, it appears as though Barack Obama will become the U.S. Democratic Party's nominee for U.S. President. Seemingly as inevitable as was my own belief (as recently as January, 2008) in the inevitability of Hillary Clinton. Would not have seen this one taking place. Before this past week.
____________________________________________________________

February 22, 2008:

George Washington's 276th birthday. So appropriate. George Washington (1732-1799), first president of the United States (1789-1797) and one of the most important leaders in United States history. His role in gaining independence for the American colonies and later in unifying them under the new U.S. federal government cannot be overestimated. Laboring against great difficulties, he created the Continental Army, which fought and won the American Revolution (1775-1783), out of what was little more than an armed mob. After an eight-year struggle, his design for victory brought final defeat to the British at Yorktown, Virginia, and forced Great Britain to grant independence to its overseas possession.
____________________________________________________________

February 17, 2008:

Political fortunes can change, most certainly, in the twinkling of an eye. Why 1 week, in politics, can be an eternity. For any of the main political players.
____________________________________________________________

February 6, 2008:

Dick Morris continues to identify Hillary Clinton's main (and hidden) source of support as being among single women. With candidacy of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton can depend upon the votes of single, well educated, career women only. Will this be enough for her to win? As always: "We will see!".

Happy trails,

Ed Bradley.

January 24, 2008:

Because this posting has become so long the updates have been reversed so that the most recent update will now appear at the top of the text and the oldest update will appear at the bottom of the text. Hope this makes the posting easier to read and more interesting as well.

No one was more surprised than myself about the "reversals of fortune" for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. My thinking was: "gender politics” would be the real “story” behind the outcome of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election(s).

Inasmuch as everyone likes to be right, it hurts to be found "mistaken in my expectations". It is most comforting, though, to know that the 28 consecutive year juggernaut of Reagan(Bush), Bush, Clinton, Bush (& Clinton) may not extend itself to a whopping 36 straight years. Inviting further negative editorial comment about the American electorate and the primary-election process for "selecting" major political party candidates for "elected" public office.

If Obama is elected U.S. President, then I am hopeful for the future. Provided the following may happen:

1. Third world and other nations will stop labeling the U.S.. As a “white-racist” and “war-like” nation. Which, except for a strident minority, has never been true.

2. World peace may "break-out"! At least, insofar as the U.S. is concerned.

3. "Change" is defined as "improvement" and not as: more corruption; serving only one’s “special interest” campaign contributors: revenge upon one's, most broadly defined, opposition; and/or ignoring the true "public interest" which would serve the greatest possible number or the true "majority" of Americans.

Both Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem must now know: Oprah Winfrey is the most influential woman in America. Dr. Phil, notwithstanding.
____________________________________________________________

November 20, 2007:

My belief that women voters will vote for 2008 U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in unprecedented numbers, has suffered some unexpected set-backs in recent weeks. The reasons are as follows:

1. N.Y.S. Governor Eliot Spitzer's attempt to issues driver licenses and collect registration fees from illegal aliens which met with overwhelming public opposition from New York voting and tax-paying citizens. Receiving a 78+% disapproval rating. Hillary Clinton's unwillingness to take a firm position, either for or against this idea, has caused her to lose ground in the popularity polls.

2. Dick Morris' highly publicized dislike of her, supported by his own anecdotal renderings, is costing her as well.

All of the above seems to indicate that her inevitability as the Democratic U.S. Presidential nominee is now in question. Though I, personally, do not yet believe it. We'll see.
____________________________________________________________

With respect to all of the so-called "issues", the main issue remains: "Women, in unprecedented numbers and percentages, will vote for Hillary Clinton." Hillary Clinton's female gender will be the over-riding issue for most who do. This should win her almost every primary election race and, subsequently, the endorsement of the Democrats to make her their Presidential candidate. Her female gender will make her most electable in the November, 2008 general election as well. Keep this in mind as the events of the next 14 months unfold.

Copies of E-mails sent to political analyst Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly, host of the Fox News Channel TV program, "The Factor". As well some postings by DickMorris.com sent to members.

Prefacing Remarks:

Most of us have been taught, told and led to believe that politics in America is, mainly and in the simplest of terms, about party affiliation (Republican vs Democrat) and/or philosophy (liberal vs conservative).

In the late 1960's, some political pundits began to make reference to affluence (rich vs poor) and race (black vs white) as the being the more accurate criteria by which to assess American politics. Since then, these ideas have gained great "currency" and acceptance among many observers of the American political scene.

There is now a 3rd criteria, in my opinion. That criteria is gender (men vs women). Let me explain the basis for what I think and have to say.

After 1990, American voters, born before 1946 and because of attrition, were no longer the majority. Those born after 1945 became, numerically, the "new" voting majority.

During the 1989-93 Presidential Administration of George H.W. Bush (# 41), there were an enormous number of well publicized sex scandals involving U.S. government officials as well as some U.S. military personnel. In most or all of these cases, women were or claimed to be victimized by one or more of the men with whom they were associated and/or involved.

In one case, the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, the allegations of "sexual harrassment" were, most probably, false. But no one knows for sure as it was a classic "He said/She said" scenario. In the end, most women believed Anita Hill, his accuser, as most men believed Thomas. He was "confirmed" to become an Associate Justice by a U.S. Senate, comprised, mostly, of men after being approved by a Senate committee, all of whom were men. What did this say to American women? How did this inform their thinking about how well respected and regarded they were by men? And, most importantly, by men holding important positions of authority and power?

In 1993, my 8th official year in local politics, witnessed a "sweep" of election victories, by women candidates. The only time a woman did not win is when she lost to another woman. And this happened in 3-way races where a man was also a candidate. This means that with 2 women, spliting their vote, a woman still won. This is based on a personal knowledge of the candidates where they were all, roughly, equal in their combined backgrounds of education, aptitude, intelligence and experience. In most cases, the man was older and had more in the way of "experience". An accident of history.

Victorious women were, usually, younger, more liberally disposed, had better formal educations(ie: Bachelor, Master, degrees etc.) and were of my generation. After giving the matter some thought, I was forced to conclude: Many woman voters had become galvanized to vote only for woman candidates. The issue of greatest importance. To them. Voting for a male candidate, opposed by a woman, was not an option.

Ironically, this was a community where the vast majority of voters were, openly, active and conscientious members of the Roman Catholic Church. Community life was, in large part, centered on and around a Roman Catholic parish. All the women elected were active and conscientious advocates for the "feminist" agenda of legalized abortion and homosexual rights. All anethema to Catholic Christian teachings and values.

Some of the successful woman candidates were able to, effectively, portray themselves as Catholic wives and mothers while being openly anti-Catholic in their exprssed political values and agenda.

At the same time, many of the men were, undeservedly, victimized by campaigns of "personal destruction", slander and defamation. Even after giving years of voluntary, unpaid, dedicated and selfless service to all of their neighbors by providing liaison between them and their municipal government so as to direct services, where needed and when possible. Not an easy task. This made no difference to the voters.

Many of the women, who were elected, had not served at all. But they had been politically active, running failing campaigns and learning many valuable lessons as a result. Finally, becoming able to run successful political campaigns.

In 2000, Hillary Clinton was a Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. Senate, from New York State. The year before she changed her residence from the state of Arkansas, where she was Arkansas' 1st lady before becoming 1st lady of the U.S.. All by being married to Bill Clinton who was Governor of Arkansas and then U.S. President, respectively, and in that sequence.

Early in the 2000 election campaign, she was running behind, in the opinion polls, to her Republican Party opponent, Rick Lazio. At first, the main issue was: he was the true native New Yorker and, thereby, the more worthy candidate. Most New Yorkers agreed. She was portrayed as the selfish and opportunistic "carpetbagger" seeking her political fortunes in a place: of which she had no knowledge or appreciation; where she had never lived and to which she would never be loyal. And that the U.S. Senate seat would be nothing more, to her, than a "stepping stone" to become the 1st woman to be elected to the Office of U.S. President.

Everything changed during their 1st televised debate. Rick Lazio challenged Hillary Clinton to sign "a pledge" to conduct herself in an honorable and ethical way during the remaining time of their election campaign. The challenge seemed to strike her speechless and put her at a distinct disadvantage. But just for a few seconds. Lazio, then pulled a package of papers(the "pledge") and a pen, from his pocket. He then walked across the stage, from his podium to hers, invaded her personal space and placed the "pledge" and the pen on her podium for her to sign. At his insistence. An act of colossal stupidity.

In what was the most expert portrayal of a woman about to be victimized, Hillary Clinton, in a fraction of a second, recoiled and by way of her body language gave the impression she was feeling physically threatened by the advance(s) of Rick Lazio. She recovered her composure quickly and, interestingly, complimented him on his initiative. The next public opinion poll gave her a substantial lead in the race. All those acting lessons from her "Hollywood" friends finally "paid off". Big time!

The public reaction to this incident, from women, was one of outrage. Many women who, before this 1st debate, had decided to vote for Lazio, then, changed their minds. Based on what I had observed and learned, in 1993, and while watching the debate, my silent reaction was: "Well! His campaign is now doomed to fail. That's the election!"

Public and private feedback went something like this: "He reminded me of my husband. My husband liked to suprise me by sticking bills and official papers, under my nose, with the expectation that I had to pay and sign them. Without even knowing what they were or for what I would be held financially and/or legally responsible."

One other response: "I was going to vote for Lazio because he is a New Yorker and, like Hillary Clinton, is really smart (read" intelligent). Only a stupid person (read: "man") would mistreat a woman as did Lazio in their 1st debate. I would rather be represented by a smart person, I don't personally like, but who knows better than to mistreat a woman. He is too stupid to represent me in the U.S. Senate. Therefore, I have changed my mind, and will be voting for Hillary." Hillary Clinton won that election by a landslide.

In 2006, Hillary Clinton was re-elected by an even wider margin of victory. Her opponent was another conservative Republican named John Spencer.

Submitted:Jan 31, 2007
Reads: 1,379
Comments: 33
Likes: 6

On Tuesday, January 19, 2010,
Massachusetts voters elected a conservative Republican to replace
the lateU.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The election was seen,
essentially, as being a referendum on U.S. President Barack H.
Obama's performance during his1st 12 months in office. There is
still another 33 months before the next U.S. Presidential
election. Political public opinion can reverse itself, several
times, during such a longperiod. So! Stay tuned!

http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1813

On Monday, October 13, 2008,
the U.S. stock market indexes staged a dramatic comeback. To me,
this means that the economy will become the single most important
issue. Daily stock market performance will be most influential.
The closer we come to election-day, Tuesday, November 4, 2008.
Employment, personal spending and the U.S. standard of living,
for the American middle class, will be crucial as
well.

Starting on Monday, September
15, 2008 this campaign took a terrifying turn. "There is no
situation is so bad that something cannot take place or be done
which will make matters worse." This pertains to our global
economy and not just the U.S. Economy. Though the problem/s did
originate in the U.S.